Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry, I cannot help you with your cognitive dissonance.
There is no cognitive dissonance. It is FACT that Native Americans were under the jurisdiction of US law beginning in 1885, but did NOT have 14th Amendment birthright US citizenship. Their US-born offspring were not birthright US citizens until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 was passed. A foreign national being subject to US law is simply not enough to qualify for 14th Amendment US citizenship. If it were, Native Americans would have had birthright US citizenship since 1885. They did not.
Quote:
Now you're just equivocating.
Getting back to the point, the decision handed down in US v Wong Kim Ark established that:
The parents were not US citizens (subjects of the Emperor of China).
The parents were under the jurisdiction of the United States (lived here, ran a business, weren't part of the Chinese diplomatic corps) when the defendant was born.
The defendant was born in the United States.
Ergo, the defendant had US citizenship at birth, per the 14th Amendment.
Nothing that the defendant has done since his birth has caused him to lose his US citizenship.
You left out one very important qualification. I'll quote the WKA decision, directly:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
LPRs (Lawful Permanent Residents, aka Green Card holders) have a permanent residence in the US, but illegal aliens do not. They're present in the US illegally and shouldn't even be here at all. Their offspring do not qualify for 14th Amendment US citizenship.
LPRs (Lawful Permanent Residents, aka Green Card holders) have a permanent residence in the US, but illegal aliens do not. They're present in the US illegally and shouldn't even be here at all. Their offspring do not qualify for 14th Amendment US citizenship.
You're insisting on something that's simply not true.
The body of the SCOTUS decision goes into great detail to note that the requirements are only that a person be born on US soil and that said person (via his/her parents) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. About the only other possible qualification is the carve out left for (as it was termed) "Indians untaxed"...and that was due to previous case law and constitutional law.
That's quite different than what your demanding everyone else accept.
Do you even know what the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' means?
You're insisting on something that's simply not true.
The body of the SCOTUS decision goes into great detail to note that the requirements are only that a person be born on US soil and that said person (via his/her parents) are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. About the only other possible qualification is the carve out left for (as it was termed) "Indians untaxed"...and that was due to previous case law and constitutional law.
That's quite different than what your demanding everyone else accept.
Do you even know what the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' means?
Sorry but the decision is quite clearly worded as such:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
It states EXACTLY the conditions under which US citizenship can be affirmed.
The US State department explains the US v Wong Kim Ark decision:
Quote:
(1) The U.S. Supreme Court examined at length the theories and legal precedents on which the U.S. citizenship laws are based in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In particular, the Court discussed the types of persons who are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a child born in the United States to Chinese parents acquired U.S. citizenship even though the parents were, at the time, racially ineligible for naturalization;
(2) The Court also concluded that: “The 14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.†Pursuant to this ruling:
(a) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally; and that; and
(b) A child born in an immigration detention center physically located in the United States is considered to have been born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. This is so even if the child’s parents have not been legally admitted to the United States and, for immigration purposes, may be viewed as not being in the United States.
So, either the US State Department is wrong or an anonymous poster on C-D is wrong...
The US State Dept is stating "political policy," NOT actual Constitutional Law. That's what several of us have been saying. Allowing illegal aliens' offspring birthright US citizenship has been fairly recent political policy, NOT actual Constitutional Law. Neither the US Constitution nor any SCOTUS decision grants birthright US citizenship to illegal aliens' offspring.
The US State Dept is stating "political policy," NOT actual Constitutional Law. That's what several of us have been saying. Allowing illegal aliens' offspring birthright US citizenship has been fairly recent political policy, NOT actual Constitutional Law. Neither the US Constitution nor any SCOTUS decision grants birthright US citizenship to illegal aliens' offspring.
Basically, it's your word against the US government. Oh, and other anonymous posters who happen to agree with you.
The US Government is wrong and a bunch of anonymous posters (at least one) on the internet are right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
